Chuck Anderson wrote: > But doesn't ISC also need a period of releases where they can go hog > wild with changes, new features, etc. and not worry about stability as > much? Isn't that period of time usually called "Alpha"? Maybe.. and maybe not. Most OSS projects don't even tag something alpha unless they actually expect someone OTHER THAN DEVELOPERS to compile, install, test, and use it (its just a cvs snapshot before that). Alpha can mean anything, or nothing, and often does; to assume the term 'alpha' being present means you must discount the maintainer's expertise with the software would be very shallow. > It's like > Rawhide--the software in there may be stable, but it doesn't have to > be, and often isn't at the beginning of a new release cycle. Yes, sure but its also not supposed to be completely bleeding and fleshy code a developer uploaded to his cvs the night before with his eyes bloodshot and forehead on the desk even in the 'period of hog wild changes'. > It's all about perception. I wouldn't put Rawhide on my production > servers, and I don't expect something that upstream calls "Alpha" to > be on my production servers either. This is nice, but it almost sounds like 'I want the newest release for the distro but I want it rock f-ing solid'. F8 released less than a month ago with many updates and bugs fixed since; I wouldn't have installed it on a production system so soon, 'alpha' in a package name or not. I can understand wanting to go to F8 rather than F7, but really within a month of release? Its not all about perception; its also much about expectation. Bugs should be expected, even with finely tuned and polished software... and even when upstream thinks its stable. -- Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> <ajfarris@xxxxxxxxx> gpg 0xC99B1DF3 at pgp.mit.edu No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer ---- ---- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
